Ask McFartnuggets: “Would You Rather Be Blind With No Legs Or Deaf With No Arms?”

They're doing some great work
with false limbs these days.

Dear McFartnuggets: “If you had to choose between being blind with no legs or deaf with no arms, what would you take?” -- Kiegan from Connecticut

Dear Kiegan:

Wow, that’s a tough one! Clearly being blind is worse than being deaf, any fool could see that. But then having no arms is worse than having no legs because the level of prosthetics for arms is nowhere near what’s available for legs. Arms are really underrated. Being deaf with no arms would be no walk in the park since you couldn’t do sign language. Communicating with people would be really difficult. Meanwhile if you’re blind with arms at least you can still feel people’s faces and read braille.

I think that ultimately the negatives of being blind outweigh the negatives of having no arms. If there were no such thing as prosthetics then maybe being blind with no legs would be a more attractive choice, but seeing as how people are getting robot limbs these days, having no arms isn’t as bad as it once was. I’d also reckon that science is closer to making super powerful robot arms than it is making a cure for blindness. So if you had a gun to my head I’d have to take the deaf no arms. Thanks for the question, Kiegan.

Send all your weird ass questions to PizzaTesticles@yahoo.com